Kraft admits he sold the team out

[Clonamery]

This is a very poor attempt at explaining your elaborations and mischaracterizations of my posts. I see you've tried to hitch a ride on Lancers side swiping logic. You're being disingenuous if not dishonest. I'm not sure what to make of your "acting like an autistic child" insult because my position has been consistent.

My position and my posts were clear. You and Lancer seem to have a problem arguing them head on and therefore have elaborated or added in details. Now you both have attempt to add "my association with Andy" malarkey. It's humorous and ironically weak.

Btw: both of you have argued Andy's opinions using the same approach. You have attacked his "extreme" position while avoiding the basis of his opinion. IOW, you both are looking for something to be right about to conclude a pseudo victory.





This is what I think as well and is at the heart of why I criticize Bob. They handicapped the Patriots for the sake of Parity. They rigged the system against the Pats. You're implying that Bob went along with it? Holy **** man how does that not bother you?

Again with the elaborations by the way.. Why would Kraft have to throw a "tantrum"? Why does fighting an accusation with truth and science on your side have to include "extreme" measures?

That is a ton of simple righteousness.

 

[Tony2046]

That is a ton of simple righteousness.

"because you "supported" or "associated with" another poster's post it becomes your opinion although your post did not reflect that opinion rather another"

Is that how it works now?

 

[lancerman]

"because you "supported" or "associated with" another poster's post it becomes your opinion although your post did not reflect that opinion rather another"

Is that how it works now?

You flat out responded to other people's characterization of another poster's stance criticizing us for using a characterization the said poster clearly earned. If you weren't talking about a poster who clearly has a far more extreme stance that you it would be one thing, but you were and you acted like we were wrong for talking about his stance on the terms he set.

It wasn't like it came out of nowhere man. When you decide to tow the line and support someone who takes that extreme stance (and you were clearly criticizing us for acknowledging his said stance) you are going to end up getting lumped in with that.

 

[Tony2046]

You flat out responded to other people's characterization of another poster's stance criticizing us for using a characterization the said poster clearly earned. If you weren't talking about a poster who clearly has a far more extreme stance that you it would be one thing, but you were and you acted like we were wrong for talking about his stance on the terms he set.

It wasn't like it came out of nowhere man. When you decide to tow the line and support someone who takes that extreme stance (and you were clearly criticizing us for acknowledging his said stance) you are going to end up getting lumped in with that.

Wrong and you're Deflecting. You have yet to argue against any of my recent posts but instead have gone off on this ridiculous tangent of trying to tie my opinions with someone else's. Why can't you argue my posts head on? Because you can't.

Here is the post I believe (because one could never really know with you) you are referring to.

I simply told him to "leave it alone". And characterized your and simpleton's all or nothing position. How in the world do you stretch that into your googly guck?

Oh and btw: I tossed him your "Hug the Principle" philosophy.

Deja vu ? Feel like I've clarified this before.

Leave it alone Andy. You're basically arguing with two jackasses that believe you can only Love Kraft or Hate Kraft. No middle ground. It's an all or nothing argument that has strayed into a Young v Montana tangent. Yay.

Clearly telling him to stop arguing with two jackasses who have only two verdicts. No middle ground.



Here are your choices: This is my interpretation of your two acceptable verdicts.

1. Love Kraft = Cannot criticize or mention that he acted like a coward.

2. Criticize his deflategate stance = Hate = Ungrateful = You must dismiss anything Kraft has done for this franchise or state or region.

3. Like Kraft = Great owner but acted weak and cowardly during both scandals. The first capitulation arguably led to the second.

Unfortunately #3 and other middling positions are not possible or permittable in this ridiculous argument.

This was my generous attempt to pass on your brilliant "Hug the Principle" philosophy.

Oh btw, If your kid gets punished in school by the Principle in a deflategate like manner ..... hug, praise, kiss and support the principle in public and in front of your kid. Because it's good to teach our sons that if you're going to lose a righteous battle it's better to capitulate like a coward. Holy **** Batman.

 

[Ring 6]

And sorry but Andy took an all or nothing position that was anything but middling.

This is totally incorrect. I addressed many issues. I gave him credit for what he deserves and criticism for what he deserves.
Truthfully you agree with those opinions but don’t like the conclusion they lead to.
Please tell me how I was all or nothing. I even posted that overall kraft was a net positive.

And the responses everyone else had were in response to his position. So when you tried to defend him because we all appropriately reacted to his extremist position by treating him like an extremist, it came off bad.

Please explain how my position was extremist. You are just bullshitting now.

 

[Soliel]

See man?

 

[Simpelton]

Again with the elaborations by the way.. Why would Kraft have to throw a "tantrum"? Why does fighting an accusation with truth and science on your side have to include "extreme" measures?

Because he has no nonextreme measures.

Individual owners have very few options when they're up against a near-consensus from the rest of the league. The NFL is an oligarchy, ruled ultimately by the owners. It doesn't matter what facts and the truth say, it doesn't matter if they can prove that the Wells report was wrong. What the owners want goes, and if Kraft gets all "over my dead body" about it, with 31 billionaires in the room he may well find that that can be arranged.

The only think Kraft can do in that situation is play to the gallery, and that doesn't exactly unsuspend Brady or get our picks back. And if he plays to the gallery -- well we saw what happened when Jerry Jones did it, and if there was any owner with clout in the room to pull off an effort to go rogue, it's probably Jones. And it absolutely failed and Jones was forced to back off and toe the line.

Ultimately the decision isn't how Kraft could have undone the damage. The damage is done, and was going to be done regardless. The question is, take the situation in the immediate aftermath of Deflategate, and how do you move forward from there? That's what you can do something about. That's what Bill means when he says "we're on to [insert next team in the schedule here]."

The past is the past, all you can plan for is the future. So ultimately the question is, should Kraft have been out for blood after Deflategate despite the distraction in the locker room, the media crapstorm, further hostility from his fellow owners and all the other strategic consequences, or is it actually a better strategic option to get the team past this quickly and just focus on winning where it mattereed?

 

[lancerman]

This is totally incorrect. I addressed many issues. I gave him credit for what he deserves and criticism for what he deserves.
Truthfully you agree with those opinions but don’t like the conclusion they lead to.
Please tell me how I was all or nothing. I even posted that overall kraft was a net positive.




Please explain how my position was extremist. You are just bullshitting now.

When you say the only positive thing Kraft did was hire Belichick and that he is a net negative minus that hire and that everything else he did made Belichick's job HARDER you are taking such an extreme and controversial stance that it can't be taken seriously. Sorry that's just the way it is. That's like me saying something dumb like the only smart thing Belichick ever did was draft and play Brady and that he was a net negative without him and that by never stacking his offenses with preemium skill talent like Manning had he made Brady's job harder. It's simply preposterous.

 

[lancerman]

Because he has no nonextreme measures.

Individual owners have very few options when they're up against a near-consensus from the rest of the league. The NFL is an oligarchy, ruled ultimately by the owners. It doesn't matter what facts and the truth say, it doesn't matter if they can prove that the Wells report was wrong. What the owners want goes, and if Kraft gets all "over my dead body" about it, with 31 billionaires in the room he may well find that that can be arranged.

The only think Kraft can do in that situation is play to the gallery, and that doesn't exactly unsuspend Brady or get our picks back. And if he plays to the gallery -- well we saw what happened when Jerry Jones did it, and if there was any owner with clout in the room to pull off an effort to go rogue, it's probably Jones. And it absolutely failed and Jones was forced to back off and toe the line.

Ultimately the decision isn't how Kraft could have undone the damage. The damage is done, and was going to be done regardless. The question is, take the situation in the immediate aftermath of Deflategate, and how do you move forward from there? That's what you can do something about. That's what Bill means when he says "we're on to [insert next team in the schedule here]."

The past is the past, all you can plan for is the future. So ultimately the question is, should Kraft have been out for blood after Deflategate despite the distraction in the locker room, the media crapstorm, further hostility from his fellow owners and all the other strategic consequences, or is it actually a better strategic option to get the team past this quickly and just focus on winning where it mattereed?

This thank you. Some of you are under the illusion that. Goodell is a weapon that the owners put in place and like in place. Jerry Jones doesn't have a problem when that weapon is used on Kraft (nor do the rest of the owners) and Kraft doesn't have a problem when it is used on Jones. The problem is it is a weapon that is operated by consensus. The power in the league rests with the ownership and unless you have a majority of owners on your side, you have nothing.

Kraft actually published a counter Wells report. There were plenty of instances in the Wells report where there was enough lack of information where you could either go down a road that led to guilt or innocence, the owners wanted a pound of flesh for Spygate and they got a report that looked for guilt in the face of reasonable innocence.

Here's just the reality, the likelyhood of any action by Kraft leading to those picks being returned to the Patriots was small to next to nothing. The league took their stance and the only way any punishments were getting reduced is if Kraft or Brady flat out said they were guilty and sorry. Anything else was by all reasonable standards a pie in the sky scenario because the deck was stacked against them.

If I though there was a real reasonable chance that Kraft had any avenue to go down that would have given them even a 50% chance of getting those picks back, I'd switch sides right now and say it's infuriating for him not go for it. The reality was the deck was stacked against him and barring every single precedent being broken by some miracle, it was just not happening. And since Kraft publicly disagreed with the league, published a counter report, and even in this statement said the league screwed him, there was really nothing else to do that wouldn't have come off as a merely symbolic gesture that would have damaged relationships. I'm not crazy about Kraft being buddies with Goodell, but it really doesn't change what the outcome was going to be anyways.

Sorry but it's impossible to objectively look at the situation and say Kraft had anything but drastic measures to use and they all had extremely low chances of having any tangible effect.

 

[Ring 6]

When you say the only positive thing Kraft did was hire Belichick

But that’s not what I said.

and that he is a net negative minus that hire and that everything else he did made Belichick's job HARDER

I did say that. Except I added left belichick alone.

[quoye]you are taking such an extreme and controversial stance that it can't be taken seriously.[/quote]

How is that extreme and controversial?
Belichick is the reason for the success.
Kraft ran Parcells off the job in favor of bobby Grier. Kraft created an atmosphere for Pete carrol where players came up the backstairs to kraft to overrule him.
Kraft failed to protect his franchise in 2 cases where they were severely penalized inappropriately.
How is that not a net negative.
Feel free to stack the positives up against it.
Perhaps there are positives that matter to you that don’t to me.

Sorry that's just the way it is. That's like me saying something dumb like the only smart thing Belichick ever did was draft and play Brady

And that might be your opinion but I could respond with a number of things to refute that. See belichick has done many things in addition to having brady that have led to the success. What has kraft done other than bring B.B. in (and leave him alone) to be responsible for the success on the field?

and that he was a net negative without him and that by never stacking his offenses with preemium skill talent like Manning had he made Brady's job harder. It's simply preposterous.

He DID make Brady’s job harder. Bit by doing so he made the team better because he spent more on resources that Tom Brady couldn’t make better. With Brady you can put any weapons out there and he will give you a great offense. Why waste assets in a called system on weapons for him when you can use them
more heavily in areas he doesn’t impact and elevate.
Calling that a net negative is ridiculous.

See what you are doing is making up an example of something that isn’t what I describe to try to argue what I describe is wrong. You actually are making my case for me.

Lets try this. Tell me all the things Kraft did that make him, aside from hiring belichick a net positive FOR THE FANS.
Then we can compare and you will realize my position is not either extreme or controversial, unless you want to throw in crap like a stadium or shopping mall.


Secondly try this.

What did kraft DO about deflategate.

Here is what he didn’t do.

Object
Appeal
Challenge the bogus findings in any way
Appear as a witness for Brady when asked
Appear as a witness for Brady by phone when asked that after refusing to appear in person

Here I’ll start you out. He wrote a letter when asked to appear in person or by phone and he refused although I’m not sure that one will help you much. I’m sure you can think of something right ?

 

[Ring 6]

Because he has no nonextreme measures.

Individual owners have very few options when they're up against a near-consensus from the rest of the league. The NFL is an oligarchy, ruled ultimately by the owners. It doesn't matter what facts and the truth say, it doesn't matter if they can prove that the Wells report was wrong. What the owners want goes, and if Kraft gets all "over my dead body" about it, with 31 billionaires in the room he may well find that that can be arranged.

The only think Kraft can do in that situation is play to the gallery, and that doesn't exactly unsuspend Brady or get our picks back. And if he plays to the gallery -- well we saw what happened when Jerry Jones did it, and if there was any owner with clout in the room to pull off an effort to go rogue, it's probably Jones. And it absolutely failed and Jones was forced to back off and toe the line.

Ultimately the decision isn't how Kraft could have undone the damage. The damage is done, and was going to be done regardless. The question is, take the situation in the immediate aftermath of Deflategate, and how do you move forward from there? That's what you can do something about. That's what Bill means when he says "we're on to [insert next team in the schedule here]."

The past is the past, all you can plan for is the future. So ultimately the question is, should Kraft have been out for blood after Deflategate despite the distraction in the locker room, the media crapstorm, further hostility from his fellow owners and all the other strategic consequences, or is it actually a better strategic option to get the team past this quickly and just focus on winning where it mattereed?

Appeal

 

[Tony2046]

Because he has no nonextreme measures.

Individual owners have very few options when they're up against a near-consensus from the rest of the league. The NFL is an oligarchy, ruled ultimately by the owners. It doesn't matter what facts and the truth say, it doesn't matter if they can prove that the Wells report was wrong. What the owners want goes, and if Kraft gets all "over my dead body" about it, with 31 billionaires in the room he may well find that that can be arranged.

The only think Kraft can do in that situation is play to the gallery, and that doesn't exactly unsuspend Brady or get our picks back. And if he plays to the gallery -- well we saw what happened when Jerry Jones did it, and if there was any owner with clout in the room to pull off an effort to go rogue, it's probably Jones. And it absolutely failed and Jones was forced to back off and toe the line.

Ultimately the decision isn't how Kraft could have undone the damage. The damage is done, and was going to be done regardless. The question is, take the situation in the immediate aftermath of Deflategate, and how do you move forward from there? That's what you can do something about. That's what Bill means when he says "we're on to [insert next team in the schedule here]."

The past is the past, all you can plan for is the future. So ultimately the question is, should Kraft have been out for blood after Deflategate despite the distraction in the locker room, the media crapstorm, further hostility from his fellow owners and all the other strategic consequences, or is it actually a better strategic option to get the team past this quickly and just focus on winning where it mattereed?

Phew boy. Round and round it goes.

Start on page 1 of this thread and re reply to each post. Maybe the second time around will help.

He gave up. Appealing is not an extreme measure. Hugging, kissing, praising and supporting the fruad is extreme capitulation however.

I'm going to take my own advice which was misconstrued as a post that somehow inherited someone else's mischaracterized opinion and leave the two jackasses alone.

 

[Tony2046]

Appeal

"You're such an extremists Andy"

"Appeal?" "Appeal?!"

That's freaking crazy man.

 

[lancerman]

"You're such an extremists Andy"

"Appeal?" "Appeal?!"

That's freaking crazy man.

Yes an appeal something that nearly every analyst considered nothing more than a symbolic gesture that would go absolutely nowhere and have no chance of actually succeeding. So again an empty statement.

You know why people keep saying you are looking for a meaningless chest thumping gesture? Exhibit A. And you were so smug about it too. Haha.

 

[Tony2046]

Yes an appeal something that nearly every analyst considered nothing more than a symbolic gesture that would go absolutely nowhere and have no chance of actually succeeding. So again an empty statement.

You know why people keep saying you are looking for a meaningless chest thumping gesture? Exhibit A. And you were so smug about it too. Haha.

Phew boy.

Round and round it goes. He didn't appeal. He gave up.

Hugging, kissing, praising and supporting the fraud is extreme capitulation. <<< I guess you missed this part.

"Derr he was so smug about it" "Golly gee willikers I sure got him".

WTF? hahaha

 

[Simpelton]

Appeal

Appeal to Goodel! The guy responsible for the penalty in the first place!

That's such a great idea that Brady tried it and not only did the appeal fail (duh), but Goodell literally committed perjury in federal court to continue to smear him

I don't care what facts you try to sling out there on appeal. If the league was interested in facts in the first place the Wells report would never have been written the way it was.

You want Kraft to have exhausted his options, I get that. I maintain that since a proposed course of action that has a literally 0% chance of producing the desired result is not an "option" by definition, not trying it does not, necessarily, mean Kraft didn't exhaust his options.

 

[Simpelton]

Phew boy.

Round and round it goes. He didn't appeal. He gave up.

Who was he going to appeal to, Tony? Answer me that, and try to tell me with a straight face that there was any gold at the end of that particular rainbow.

 

[lancerman]

Phew boy.

Round and round it goes. He didn't appeal. He gave up.

Hugging, kissing, praising and supporting the fraud is extreme capitulation. <<< I guess you missed this part.

"Derr he was so smug about it" "Golly gee willikers I sure got him".

WTF? hahaha

Do you think an appeal had any real chance of success? Let's start there. There's a right answer btw.

From there, and let's see if you actually are capable of getting that right answer first, so you wanted Kraft to do something that had no real prospects of succeeding because..... fill in the blanks.

Just face it dude, you don't want anything tangible. Your upset that a billionaire didn't give you a symbolic rah rah gesture so you could feel better. Meanwhile the people that actually were effected by this (the coaches, the players, Brady himself) are all on good terms with Kraft despite all of that.

It's amazing you don't see the disconnect. You are living in a fantasy world thinking that any different outcome was going to happen and that people who actually have to behave like adults would act any differently. You have no skin in the game here besides being a fan. It's so easy for you to play Monday morning QB on this one.

Again did you notice Brady eventually capitulated. Literally he could have fought to the bitter end. He didn't. He used the only realistic channel he had to get a different outcome and when that failed he decided not to go to drastic measures for an unlikely reverse of outcome. Did you notice Brady didn't go out trashing Goodell after. Did you notice Brady played nice and smiled and took pictures with Goodell when he had the MVP ceremony? By your definition did he capitulate too?

Just bizarre.

 

[Bobsyouruncle]

He had a head coaching job because Parcells; tee'd him up for the Jets gig despite him being widely regarded as a complete failure in Cleveland.

Like Wade Phillips, and Pete Caroll and a dozen other guys who never got an offer to coach again? BB was more successful as a coordinator and HC than them (BB won a playoff game, something neither did).

Kraft aggressively went after Belichick when that happened

And Parcells aggressively went after him as well. That's not real good evidence nobody wanted him. That's two teams we know of that wanted him.

(sorry no other owner was going to make a hardball play like that Belichick and give up a pick to do it) based off his experience with him when Parcells' was in NE. Kraft ultimately ditched the Jets because him and Kraft reportedly got a long very well during his brief stint as assistant coach with the Pats and Belichick believed it was a better opportunity than the Jets. Which should speak volumes that Belichick was willing jump ship and ditch a team that was offering him his first HC opportunity after his last one went up in smokes and break from a plan his mentor and long time working partner Parcells' formulated thus souring their relationship.

If you know anything about what went down it's not surprising at all. I think BB would rather have sat out a year then take a HC job or any job then take what his mentor was offering- which was a refusal to let him interview for HC jobs. Parcells was preventing him from moving up. In fact BB said the one thing he knew was the right call was resigning.

He was resigning regardless, not because he loved Kraft so much.

And lets be honest, in hindsight, Woody Johnson was never going to give BB anywhere near the authority that Belichick had.

Oh and considering in 2000 the Jets needed a QB so much and they used one of 4 first round picks on Chad Pennington, there was about zero chance that Belichick and Brady duo was happening. Now a team that had Drew Bledsoe, one of the better QB's in the league who already led the team to a Super Bowl.....

What's that supposed to mean? The Jets drafted a QB, the Patriots had one. There's little chance of Brady getting the job in either team unless BB drafts him- which he did. Maybe he would have drafted Brady no matter where he coached, or signed him undrafted. Obviously having an established QB was not a barrier to drafting Brady.

 

[Ring 6]

Yes an appeal something that nearly every analyst considered nothing more than a symbolic gesture that would go absolutely nowhere and have no chance of actually succeeding. So again an empty statement.

That’s bs. But please explain to me why appealing penalties when you are not guilty to the man you helped get the job, suppport at every turn, publicly embrace often, stand up for against another owner, recommend a contract extension for and have never criticized would have no chance of succeeding.

The please explain why Robert Kraft himself said that isn’t the reason he didn’t appeal.

The answer is making that up and believing that is the only way you can defend your position.

You know why people keep saying you are looking for a meaningless chest thumping gesture? Exhibit A. And you were so smug about it too. Haha.

Explain this one for me.

When his team and GOAT were attacked he did nothing.
When Jerry Jones attaches goodell kraft stood up and fought.